Ong Leong Boon
Singapore
“Sir, I am not at all surprised with the reply. In fact, it was more than one sentence, but the rest sounded like an apologia for what he could not offer. I am not at any time saying the Government is not doing enough. In fact, I started by saying that the Government has done quite a lot.”
“I am sure other sports associations - volley ball, basket ball, table tennis and many others - would also want very much to have similar facilities. The question is: how does one raise the necessary funds to build these centres? At this juncture, I think one can fall back upon the example of the construction of community centres.”
“460 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981, contained in Paper Cmd 4 of 1980," put and agreed to.”
“I think it is important that, in carrying out this scheme, consideration ought to be given to preserving some of these blocks because there is a social need for retaining them.”
“Sir, when I spoke earlier on, I refrained from going into the various details. But I can assure the Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary that certain well-defined injuries which develop later complications could be included in the guidelines. This has been a recurrent problem in our everyday encounter with workmen's compensation.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code RD-06 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I move this amendment to seek information on the proposed Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. I notice that there is a vote of more than $3 million for this Institute.”
The complete record
Every one of 320 lines we hold for Ong Leong Boon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 7.
“(6) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WC-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“I should be most grateful if the Hon. Finance Minister would throw some light on the questions and doubts raised?”
“Is this a move purely for capital raising? Is this a move to encourage the public to have a stake in the SBS? Can the Government guarantee that shareholders will not lose their hard-earned savings? Or are we encouraging the public to dabble in shares? Can the capital not be raised through the normal practice of a public issue of shares without touching the CPF? I submit the following views for the consideration of this House: (1) That 20 million shares if bought up maximally per shareholder to the tune of $5,000 would mean 4,000 shareholders; and 4,000 new shareholders represent only 1/300% of 1.2 million CPF contributors. (2) That any move to make SBS a profit-oriented public company will benefit only a small number of people. The need to adjust or revise fares is justified only in so far as it is necessary to make SBS solvent. That any unfair hike in fares is unjustified if profit is the prime motive. No doubt the shareholders will applaud any move to make the company a lucrative business proposition, but commuters will have to pay much more for transport. (3) That public transport must be an efficient, reliable and cheap means of transportation, particularly in view of the Government's strong and merciless clamp-down on private car ownership. (4) That $5,000 represents nearly 10 years of CPF savings for a wage earner with a monthly income of about $200, and in Singapore today about 90% of our wage earners earn less than $500 per month. What guarantee is there that a wage earner's old-age savings are not lost in part or whole through such a venture? Why touch the CPF when the CPF Board is able to maintain the same interest rate of 6 1/2% per annum which is credited to members' accounts? Can SBS ensure an all-weather 7 1/2% dividend to shareholders?”
“This announcement probably provides a partial answer to queries as to why the Government is extremely cautious and reluctant to sink billions of dollars into the rail-based MRT. And why not have an efficient public road transport in the form of the new SBS rather than the MRT? Moreover, experience elsewhere has shown that a rail-based MRT does not necessarily provide the answer to an efficient public transport besides requiring costly initial capital and equally exorbitant cost of maintenance. However, I find it imperative that I must voice strong reservations regarding the method of raising fresh capital for the new SBS. I have no quarrel with raising fresh capital by incorporating the SBS as a public company and to have its shares listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. To allow CPF contributions up to a maximum of $5,000 to be used to buy SBS shares is a totally new and unprecedented move that goes contrary to the spirit and purpose of the CPF. The Central Provident Fund was established in 1955 to provide workers in Singapore with some form of compulsory savings for their old age and in the event of their being permanently disabled. Our political philosophy today still does not embrace the debatable socialist ideal of a welfare state where the old and disabled are totally cared for in health and in sickness. The CPF other than pension benefits represents the only form of compulsory savings. The CPF is jealously guarded and subscribers have so far only after much debate and persuasion been able to utilise CPF contributions to purchase low-cost HDB or JTC flats and middle-income Housing and Urban Development Company flats under the Approved Housing Schemes. To permit CPF contributions to be withdrawn to buy SBS shares now is a move fraught with contradictions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I read with deep concern the joint statement by the Ministries of Finance and Communications yesterday which was published in the newspapers this morning regarding the incorporation on 17th February, 1978 of a new company, the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd and the issue of 20 million shares at a dollar par value to the public. To enable a large number of people to buy the shares, particularly SBS employees who will be given priority in the new issue, the Government will amend the Central Provident Fund Act to allow CPF savings to be used to buy the shares, up to $5,000 of their CPF savings. The statement from these Ministries also promised good management in the SBS, well enough to be able to pay 7 1/2% dividend to shareholders, and concession passes for unlimited travel to those who buy 1,000 or more shares with CPF savings. Further, the statement says that experience had shown that with sound management and motivated staff, the Singapore Bus Service would provide a reliable and efficient service. It could also make a fair return on capital so long as bus fares are not fixed at unrealistic levels" and there had not been any fare rises since February 1974. Sir, I welcome the declaration and move by the Government to further improve the standard of bus service to the public and the commitment to purchase more and better buses as well as improvements in depot and workshop facilities. Perhaps given time, resources and good management, the SBS may well be the answer to Singapore's chronic and challenging problem of providing a first rate means of public transport for the present as well as the future.”
“If looking at these figures they do not indicate a liberalising of approval for citizenship, particularly for those whose roots are in Singapore, then would the Minister consider liberalising the rules governing application for citizenship? We would be most grateful if the Minister could comment on the reasons for rejecting these applications.”
“We would like the Government to consider relaxing the rules governing the award of citizenship, since it is quite difficult to ponder in the vast majority of cases who are, in fact, deeply rooted in Singapore. These are the people who have been living in this country for more than ten years. If one goes according to the stipulations they would have succeeded in the application. But for some reason other than the length of stay, they have not been successful. One rejection, two, three, four and even five rejections; and no reasons assigned. We also have the case, as mentioned earlier, of a single member, a non-citizen in a family, small or large, but the other members of the family are citizens. This is perhaps a victim of the circumstances at birth; perhaps due to the fact that there was no name in the birth certificate. I understand that today even the statutory declaration is not sufficient evidence to show that his name was left out at that time for some reasons. For example, some Christians may be born without being named at the time of birth because the name would be given at the time of christening. That is just one example. For a lot of other people, names were not given at the time of birth. They were only given subsequently. But the fact that the names were not there meant that that certificate might not be his and, therefore, not born in this country. I would be most grateful if the Minister could enlighten this House as regards the number of applications for Singapore citizenship and the number approved as at the end of the last two years, that is 31st December, 1976, and 31st December, 1977.”
“Sir, I rise to support the sentiments expressed by the three previous speakers. I would like to say that in our experience of meet-the-people sessions helping them to apply for citizenship is probably the most futile exercise that we have ever conducted. Perhaps, in a sense, the replies that I got are a little better than the replies received by the Member for Punggol in that besides the two lines of rejection there is the added phrase which says that "it is the prerogative of the Minister not to assign any reason for rejecting the application." Perhaps the Member for Punggol might recall that too.”
“Sir, when I raised the point on the Highway Code I was hoping that the Minister would perhaps consider giving a copy of the Highway Code to the driver every time he renews his driving licence. I mentioned my confusion regarding my knowledge of the Highway Code because I had the experience of driving behind the Hon. Minister himself, and it was quite an exercise in updating my knowledge of the new Highway Code.”
“Sir, the last point is with regard to the question of road hogging. We still notice a lot of road hoggers. But in order to define what a road hogger is, one must understand which lane is fast and which lane is slow. We have yet to clearly define this. In the old Highway Code that I was familiar with, the fast lane is the outer lane and the slow lane is the inner lane. Today we have situations where the whole road is actually one-way traffic, like when we come down Kim Seng Road which has four or five lanes. There is a lane for vehicles to filter left as well as a lane for vehicles to filter right. In this case, is the right traffic fast and the left traffic slow, or are the middle lanes fast and outer lanes on both sides slow? Sir, I notice that I have developed the habit of speaking close to 8 o'clock. I shall now give time for the Hon. Minister to kindly reply to these points.”
“At this junction, the green arrow indicates that vehicles could filter right, Now, all of a sudden it goes off and at the same time the traffic light for the opposite lane at right angles suddenly turns green, thus creating a potentially disastrous situation for a collision. Every time I cross this junction, I shudder to think of the possible consequences. I notice that at some traffic junctions, they have installed a flickering green arrow and perhaps this would be suitable. Or else consideration should be given to add an amber arrow to warn that the light is about to change. Interestingly, Sir, we also observe that near River Valley and Tank Roads, they have now introduced a red arrow. Perhaps the Minister might tell us that red arrow means either crossing at your own risk or not to cross at all!”
“Yes, perhaps so. But the point I am driving at is that besides updating the Highway Code, it should be introduced to the drivers periodically, either by sending it to them or they can be compelled to purchase the new Highway Code when they renew their driving licence. We know that many measures have been introduced locally to try to modulate our traffic to ensure that the roads are safe. Of course, the question of pedestrian crossing is a very recent thing in our minds. I still believe that we have not been able to drive home this message sufficiently. In order to ensure better pedestrian habit, one way would be to install more green man/red man lights at traffic junctions. I think it is worth spending some money to install more of these lights to help pedestrians to cross roads safely. 7.45 p.m. At the same time, the Traffic Police should monitor and ensure that the time span for the green man should be adjusted so that there is no inconvenience to traffic turning either left or right. But we still see traffic congestion and traffic being held back because of this lack of proper adjustment of the pedestrian crossing time. Sometimes the pedestrians are at fault because, instead of running across when it is appropriate, they just stroll along one after another as if it is a delight to see a line of traffic being held back, Sir, there is another problem which I thought is worth mentioning. This is with regard to the green arrow traffic light. We are pretty familiar with the green arrow now. But I notice that at some traffic junctions the green arrow for right filter can, if not modified, become a source of traffic accidents. I am specifically referring to the Holland Road/Farrer Road/Queensway junction where traffic in this area tends to move rather fast.”
“Sir, as we see it, the traffic today is in many ways under some semblance of control, with campaigns on road safety. Nevertheless, we still see a high incidence of traffic accidents with great morbidity and mortality, I just wish to say that for any campaign to be effective it should be sustained. The campaign should not be for a short duration and then forgotten. There should be a sustained campaign of education and a continued enforcement of the law. One essential element of this campaign is the Highway Code. The last time I remembered the Highway Code in any detail was when I sat for my Highway Code test. That was some 17 years ago. I believe there are many elderly motorists here who could have forgotten the Highway Code altogether. I am not familiar with any changes or updating of the Highway Code.”
“Sir, in view of the very patient reply from the hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Yiok Seng - (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code QC-02 of the Main Estimates.”
“In the case of national service, unless the children are cadet officers, as privates they get a very small income of $90 to $100. In considering the ceiling of the family income, therefore, I wonder whether this small income of $90 to $100 from national service, which is just enough for transport and pocket expenses, can be disregarded in the computation of family income. In the case of widows who have young children, I think special consideration should be given on compassionate grounds, and that such small incomes should not be taken into consideration,”
“I wish to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, but he has still refrained from giving the actual number of stalls that will be available for the new applicants. Could I ask him if he could give a figure? Will the new applicants be allotted 1,000, 2,000 or 50% of the new stalls to be constructed? Mr Chor Yeok Eng( In Mandarin): Sir, I do not have the figures in hand but I can just mention in passing that we have made provision for this arrangement, i.e. in the newly constructed market where he is concerned, we will reserve 5% of the stalls for priority allocation for hardship cases. Mr Ng Yeow Chong( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to supplement the views expressed by the Member for Kim Seng. Following the increase of population in the new housing estates, I think food centres and markets are something we cannot do without, since they have become an integral part of the life of Singapore. So in the next three to five years there will be an increasing demand for hawker centres and markets. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary this question. After the resettlement of street hawkers, will the Government consider plans for the construction of new hawker centres for the public to apply because we still have a lot of people in Singapore who have no other means but to depend on hawking for a livelihood? 6.15 p.m. Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned that consideration for hawker licences depends on the family income of the applicant. For instance, a family of four with a total income of $400 will be considered. But, there are cases of widows or old people with young children or children doing national service.”
“Thank you, Sir. I will do that. The Chairman: Mr P. Govindaswamy.”
“I am raising this point purely because it is related to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's answer.”
“Sir, I just would like to refer to the point regarding the number of projected new stalls to be built in the next few years, and we were given figures by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.”
“Every time we file an application on behalf of our constituents, there comes the standard reply, "Your family income has exceeded so much." It was $150 for a total family income about a year ago. Following a request in the Budget session last year, I was told that the total family income had been increased to about $400. But a $400-income today in Singapore for a total family is a very small sum. Some families do have children who might earn $400 but who hardly take home $50 or perhaps nothing. Elderly folks do need some form of assistance. We do not want them to run to the Department of Social Welfare. Many of them do not want to do that either. They say that they want an honest living - they just want to be given a chance. I will take this opportunity to implore the Minister to consider the wider implications here. The conditions for the issue of hawker licences include the following. On the top of the list are clearance cases; secondly, street hawkers. Fairly down the list are cases of poverty and public assistance recipients. Sir, could I find out from the Minister, just for information, what is the total hawker population, how many cases need to be resettled, and how many hawker stalls would be available during the next five years. If we have these figures we will know how many new hawkers can be issued with licences, and we can therefore advise our constituents accordingly.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I take this opportunity to mention a few points regarding hawkers in Singapore and why they have become a very important topic to Members of Parliament. The main reason is that we received many requests for hawker stalls during our "Meet the people" sessions. There have also been requests for transfer of stalls from less rewarding spots to places where there is more business. Quite frequently we are very disappointed because we find that we are in a very helpless position to assist our constituents. If out of 10 applicants we are able to help one of them, we should thank our lucky stars. We tend to look very sympathetically at our constituents' problems because we know the futility of the exercise. This is compounded by the fact that in Singapore today we do have an increasing number of elderly citizens who for some reason or another are not able to get some form of employment. It is very easy to say, "Why do you not depend on your savings or the CPF?" But the CPF and savings are probably a very new concept in the last decade or so. Many elderly people do have a tremendous social and financial problem. One of the most obvious avenues would be to apply for a hawker stall. That would give them a lot of opportunity to earn some income and to continue with their simple way of life, and perhaps to help their young children. The issue is fairly important. It is not just a question of applying for a hawker stall and getting one. There is a great paraphernalia of social implications. We therefore like the Ministry of the Environment to consider the larger issue of liberalising the issue of hawker licences and perhaps to plan ahead, I wonder if the Minister can inform the House what plans his Ministry has for the future.”
“Sir, on a point of clarification. How come the newspapers seem to be reporting old news?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is on the wrong side of this House!”
“No, not just people with cars. It is for people and also for people with cars. Sir, in that same speech, the Hon. Senior Minister of State was also quoted to have said that there may be various steps taken in future to further discourage car ownership. If I remember him correctly, he said that the ARF may be reviewed periodically. We have just had the second step, an addition of 25% to the ARF. Do I take it that the next instalment of 25% might be coming soon? Perhaps the Senior Minister of State might want to elaborate on that point. I get the feeling that any additional warning in this direction might lead to a lot of panic outside. Could I get his comments on those two points? Thirdly, what is the actual car population that will satisfy the Ministry of Communications and the Ministry of Finance?”
“The total car population has not really gone up. It has remained static; in fact, less than the official figure of 140,000 cars although one can quibble and say, "New cars are being registered with greater rapidity than last year." Therefore, I have a quaint suspicion that the Ministry of Finance will jump upon this fact as an excellent means of generating more revenue. The excuse is to discourage car ownership. We are all familiar with the statement made by the Senior Minister of State for Communications recently and given publicity in the press (Straits Times, 13th March, 1978). A rhetoric question, "Is Singapore built for cars or for people?" The conclusion arrived at was that Singapore is built for people. Well, I think it is true that Singapore is built for the people. But I also believe that cars are built for people too. Why can we not have a Singapore that is built for people and cars? An hon. Member: People drive cars!”
“Sir, I must clarify a point which the Member for Moulmein mentioned. He said that I was concerned about the health of some Members when the MRT comes on the scene. I was actually having in mind the interest of the Members or Sembawang and Potong Pasir! On a more serious note about the MRT. I wish to echo the views expressed by my colleague next to me, and I say that five or six years of talk, yet more talk - Phase 1. Phase 1 1/2. Phase II - is too long. It looks like going on to Phase 2 1/2 and Phase III. And as the millions start rolling out, we still have not yet got any clear-cut notion as to whether the MRT is on or off. Sir, the idea of the MRT was really to provide some form of rapid mass transit and to provide a more efficient, less space-occupying means for good communication, and this was used as one of the excuses to discourage private car ownership. There was this talk which we hear every so often about the need to clamp down on private car ownership, the need to make sure that the roads are built for public transport and that we should keep the car population down. That is true. It is fair if we have a good, decent public transport system. But up till today, we still have not solved this problem of providing an alternative means of efficient transport. Therefore, a good number of Singaporeans have to think of ways and means of getting transportation by paying heavily for car ownership. I think most Singaporeans are more than happy to absolve themselves from the burden of having to pay heavily on buying cars. But as today there is hardly any choice. That really brings me to the question of Additional Registration Fee and the laudable intentions so ably summarised as to discourage car ownership. In a sense, it has succeeded and has succeeded very well.”
“We need more space in these old estates. This extra space could well help to make the environment better than it is today. Sir, I do hope the Minister can provide some comments on the remarks I have just made.”
“I do not think the Kim Seng constituency is the only constituency which has these flats. There are quite a number of constituencies with these emergency one-room standard flats which were built in the early days. I know that under the appalling circumstances in 1960 perhaps the residents should be eternally grateful for those flats. But Singapore has changed. Flats are now better built and, by comparison, something should be done and with haste towards improving the living conditions of those presently occupying the one-room flats. I believe the Hon. Minister will have a lot to say on this matter. But may I suggest as a temporary measure, that perhaps he should consider the provision of better lighting along the corridors. The only source of light is at the end of the long tunnel. This point has been raised many times. Every time, after a Budget session, the residents do get the lighting put on for longer hours but towards the end of the year they find that the lights go off earlier, and we have to remind the Area Offices, that they should put on the lights again. Let us hope that we do not need to bring up this point annually and say, "Please light up the corridors." 3.30 p.m. Then there is the question of ventilation. In order to improve ventilation, one suggestion was to knock down some single unit flats somewhere in between the row of flats so that the residents can have a play area and also better ventilation. I do not know when the work will start. In my constituency, we were assured by the Area Office that work was to have started in 1977-78 and yet there is nothing in sight. Maybe it is a question of conversion from one-room to two- or three-room flats. Lastly, in these old estates perhaps one or more blocks could be pulled down in order to provide empty space.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, most of the comments on the Housing and Development Board which I intended to make earlier on have been made yesterday, and I therefore do not wish to repeat them today. I shall just mention two subjects on which I hope the Hon. Minister concerned can throw some light. One is, of course, more in the nature of a suggestion. The Housing and Development Board has been paying a lot of attention, and rightly so, on the new HDB estates, to the extent that they are certainly much better built blocks of flats in terms of design, space, provision of green land, landscaping, play areas and even shopping complexes. Sir, most of us here are still Members of Parliament for the old HDB estates. I think something could be done here. I am not suggesting that the HDB has paid absolutely no attention to them. I am just seeking an assurance from the Ministry that more attention would be paid to the older estates because it is in the older estates where a lot can be done and should be done to make the living environment even better than it is today. On this count, I hope the HDB will pay more attention towards beautifying these old estates, and provide landscaping wherever possible, widen some of the roads, convert some open space into car parks and play areas. Most of us in the old estates must have read in the press with great envy when a Member of Parliament from a new estate recently suggested to his constituents that they should convert the vacant lands into gardens. This is a luxury that we can ill afford. But perhaps the HDB can help us by beautifying some of the old estates so as to make the environment more green and a better environment for gracious living. The second point is with regard to the emergency standard one-room flats.”
“Sir, I just want to take this opportunity to reinforce the question which the hon. Member for Anson has asked and, that is, what is the present position with regard to the Mass Rapid Transit System. Has the Government decided one way or another to go ahead, or to drop the plan altogether? Sir, we remember very distinctly that way back in 1973, when the present Senior Minister of State for Communications was one of us in the Backbench, he used to be one of the main spokesmen on this subject. It is already five long years and lots of money have been spent. If we look at the calculations, something like $2.89 million has been spent up to-date, that is, actual expenditure for 1976 plus the estimated expenditure for 1977. We know that Phase I has concluded; so is Phase 11. But we would like to know if all preliminary studies have been concluded or, in fact, there are still shortcomings in the studies. We would also like to know whether a more comprehensive study may be necessary and what decision the Government intends to take on this matter, knowing full well that with every month of procrastination in deciding on this matter, costs will go up.”
“Sir, in the Senior Minister of State's reply, I notice that two operative words were used. One is that he "presumes" facilities will be adequate. I do not think it is satisfactory for him to say "I presume" because if he presumes, then I may assume. Secondly, the Senior Minister of State also said that because of the presence of professors on the Planning committees, therefore he assumes that the facilities will be adequate. We know that a hospital, besides service vocations, should also have a commitment for research work. We know that much of the decision depends on the planning and perhaps the cooperation of the Ministry of Finance. Can we have more definite answers rather than using words like "presume" and "assume"?”
“Sir, from the data provided by the Senior Minister of State for National Development, it would appear that the Hospital will not be ready for service until 1983. And for Phase II, it will probably be 1985. Does it mean, therefore, that the present medical school will be shifted to the new hospital grounds in phases only after 1983? Secondly, would the facilities in the now hospital be as adequate and up to-date as the facilities at present found at the Singapore General Hospital?”
“And will this new hospital end up like some HDB flats with curves in and out and lumps here and there? This might end up with a rather interesting hospital of ill-repute. Sir, I raise this subject primarily to seek information because it would appear that so much money has been sunk in and I have yet to see a piece of land being dug or earth moved. It is of great interest to people in the University and also of great interest to people in the Jurong and Clementi areas, for which it is supposedly designed to subserve, as to what this hospital will be, the beds, the teaching facilities, and when the hospital is supposed to be built. I would also like to know when the University Teaching School is supposed to move over to Kent Ridge Hospital. I would like to seek the Hon. Minister's explanation and reveal the plans for this teaching hospital, because to-date very little is known and, from what I have heard from the Planning committee, plans seem to change tom one week to another because it is some sort of a ministerial prerogative. We are not quite sure what shape or design it should take.”
“Yes, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of item 8301 of Subhead Code NA-01 of the Development Estimates. Sir, yesterday while discussing the Ministry of Health I mentioned the subject of Kent Ridge Teaching Hospital and I am told that it concerns the development of the building of Kent Ridge Hospital through all its initial phases of planning, and the building comes under the Ministry of National Development. Looking at the Development Estimates of Kent Ridge Hospital, the total original estimated expenditure is in the region of $11 million and the actual expenditure up to the end of FY 76 is already $3 1/2 million. The expenditure for FY 77 is $3 million and the estimated expenditure for FY 78 is $10.2 million. Sir, I do not really know what is the total estimated cost of building Kent Ridge Teaching Hospital. We know for a fact that the Singapore General Hospital will cost the Government something in the region of nearly $200 million, and that is to replace the present Singapore General Hospital. It does not provide for any fancy stuff, but that alone would come to $200 million. But for Kent Ridge Hospital, which is supposedly a teaching hospital and at the same time to serve as a service general hospital for Jurong and Clementi Estates, I wonder if the actual expenditure would be as projected which is a rather minute sum of money. Would this sum be sufficient to build a hospital of any calibre, let alone a teaching hospital? I do not know if it is for that reason that the planning comes under the Ministry of National Development, because this Ministry is well known for its very special calculation when it comes to building.”
“Further, in view of the need to upgrade skills and the emphasis on higher technology, and recognising the present shortage locally of skilled and highly skilled workers, what steps are being taken or under way to attract skilled labour into Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As we are aware, Singapore today still depends heavily on non-citizen work permit holders to supplement the manpower for various industries in Singapore. The construction industry is particularly heavily dependent on these workers. Arising from the presence of these workers in our country certain social repercussions are inevitable ranging from bad habits and influences, the lack of social discipline, the disregard for a clean, green and gracious environment - much play was given to this negative aspect of immigrant labour before. Further the presence of such workers, many of whom are young, single and marriageable has led to courtships between locals and foreigners. Under normal circumstances, a love affair should be a pleasurable experience, but in respect of love between locals and work permit holders it is only pleasurable, I think, if marriage is not considered. Our society is fortunately not hedonistic enough to accept "cohabitation" as an acceptable alternative to marriage. During our meet-the-people sessions, as Members of Parliament we share the unhappy experience of trying to help these couples proceed to wedlock. I do not envy the Commissioner for Employment for the powers he holds to say yes or no to applications to contract marriage. The requirement for a minimum of five years' employment here for a work permit holder before the issue of a permit to marry has resulted in a lot of hardship - physical and emotional for such couples and their families. I would be most grateful if the Hon. Minister for Labour would enlighten this House - (1) if work permit regulations are under review; and (2) if Singapore will in the foreseeable future remain dependent on work permit holders to help man our expanding industrialisation programme.”
“Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce what has been said earlier by my two colleagues here. Most of the points have been covered, except that I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Labour to the fact that under the establishment list for Industrial Safety, the number apparently has decreased from 77 to 76 posts, the one-less being due to "one Technical supernumerary post abolished." One would have thought that with the increasing number of factories coming up in Singapore and with the increased emphasis on industrial safety the number of posts in the establishment list should increase rather than decrease. We know that as at the present moment there are some 6,000 factories in Singapore. With a small technical staff, I question the thoroughness of inspection of factories and the safety precaution enforced in these factories. We realise that we continue to have accidents and industrial mishaps with loss of limbs and lives. Of course, we can easily classify these into two causes: either through the carelessness of the workers or through the lack of safety measures. We are, of course, conducting lots of education programmes to inculcate good industrial habits and safety precaution on the part of the workers. But in terms of the installation of safety measures by the employers, I think much has to be left to the Ministry to ensure that these safety measures are installed. I would like to seek the Ministry's views as to whether it is satisfied with the present level of industrial safety and whether the incidents, in terms of industrial accidents and the degree of severity today, is on the rise or on the decline; and how these figures would compare with similar figures in other industrialised countries.”
“But I am sure he would be appalled to hear that presently all and sundry within the medical profession, ranging from experts to novices, are called upon individually and only occasionally, collectively, to attend to workmen's compensation - resulting sometimes in less than equitable or, in fact, blatantly unfair awards. This had led to disputes and the need for arbitration to the extent that we find Government doctors versus private practitioners employed by insurance companies, and lawyers polarising into conflicting parties. I therefore feel that if it is not possible for all cases to be discussed and considered by a Medical Board, then perhaps those cases which are challenged should be submitted to such a board of experts for a fair and equitable assessment. (3) The problem of injured workmen's self-induced complications by defaulting medical treatment and resorting to Chinese sin-sehs, bomohs and quacks. Last year the Senior Parliamentary Secretary gave very fair comments on some of the points raised, particularly with regard to point (3) which I raised. He had also promised to look into the other aspects of my views on these matters. I would like this year to take this opportunity to invite his comments and perhaps to elaborate on actions which he has taken.”
“Sir, last year I highlighted certain areas in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1975, for discussion and improvement, in the hope that the Ministry of Labour would look into them. To be fair to the Ministry of Labour, we are quite aware that the Workmen's Compensation Act had gone through various stages of revision. There was an amendment Act of 1971 and there is this Workmen's Compensation Act of 1975. But even with the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1975, a very cursory glance through the First Schedule would reveal gross inadequacies. These were the points which I raised last year and I would like to mention them once again: (1) The need for more comprehensive guidelines in the First Schedule. Presently, several aspects of trauma and the results of treatment of injuries and fractures, such as joint stiffness, muscle wasting and nerve injuries, are not covered in the First Schedule. Earlier on, similar views were expressed regarding the non-coverage of injuries like scars, the loss of the external ear, the loss of a tooth or teeth where no compensation award was provided. I say, Sir, for areas which have not been covered, the quantum of compensation awarded are left very largely to the attending physician who again gropes around in the dark to offer a percentage award. 3.30 p.m. (2) I feel that there is a need to establish a more permanent and expert Compensation Medical Board for awarding the quantum of compensation. An earlier speaker, had great faith in the doctors in Government service.”
“Sir, the point here is whether the employer would grant leave for abortion or sterilisation. Let us remember that the Government is trying to encourage, in fact very strongly, people to abort if they can help it and to sterilise whenever possible. Let us remember that sterilisation is a once-over affair. One does not sterilise every year. That being so, I think it will be well in order that the Government should, in fact, encourage additional leave just for the purpose of sterilisation. Here we have this problem of the Labour Minister appearing rather reluctantly to endorse the view that it should, in fact, be considered medical leave. 3.15 p.m. As for passing the responsibility to the doctor to say, "This is sick leave", I think everybody knows what is sickness and what is sterilisation, as sterilisation is somewhat different from a sick situation. It does happen quite often where employers do request doctors for a medical report and I think doctors cannot falsify what is true.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the Minister of State's reply to the Member for Anson, I gained the impression that the Government or his Ministry is not in favour or, in fact, discouraging local workers from going out of this country to the Middle East. I just do not understand why we are discouraging our workers from working in other countries. For example, I think South Korea has about 100,000 workers in the Middle East and that labour force is earning foreign currency for the country. Mr Sia Kah Hui: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sorry if I had given the wrong impression that we are discouraging our people from working abroad and bringing in hard currency back to Singapore. I am afraid that was not my intention whatsoever. What I was trying to stress was that our workers should keep their eyes open when they put their signatures on the dotted line. We have read a lot about swindling cases and that when our people were sent abroad they were not given proper board and lodging. They had to suffer and even come back before they really had a chance to fulfil their contract. What I am advocating is that before our workers take on jobs abroad they should first check and make sure that the contract is not loaded against them and that the provisions in the contract are enforceable in Singapore, so that if there is anything wrong then we can always get hold of the recruiting agents or contractors and bring them to book. Mr Tan Cheng San (Paya Lebar)( In Mandarin): Sir, in view of the explanation of the Minister of State, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. 2.45 p.m.”
“I would like to ask the Minister responsible if, in fact, these accusations were true. If they were not true, perhaps we should play down this negative aspect from the immigrant workers. I would like to turn to another question which seems quite pertinent at this point of time. As Singapore continues to seek higher skills to upgrade its technology both in industry as well as in other areas, we seem to face now a real shortage of skilled labour. If we continue with our local educational programmes to produce skilled labour and yet unable to meet the requirement of skilled labour, what then are the answers? Are we going to attract skilled labour from foreign countries? If so, what then will be the offers to such skilled labour from other countries? We recognise, even today, lots of problems in our conduct of "meet-the-people" sessions when our local work people are exposed to a good number of foreign workers, somewhere in the region of 100,000. Inevitably there will be this social interaction, friendship leading up to love and perhaps marriage. If we continue to depend on immigrant workers, are we not going to be faced with these similar problems? Again, to attract the skilled labour, we have to make terms of employment, perhaps terms of residence, the question of housing and the right to marry locals and so forth, to the extent that we are able to attract such workforce from other countries. I would like therefore to seek the Minister for Labour's views on the points I have raised.”
“Sir, time is running out and therefore I hope to utilise the next few minutes and spare the Minister the opportunity to answer till the next session. The question of manpower requirement for the Singapore labour force is a subject which has attracted a fair bit of attention from all quarters, including attention from related Cabinet Ministers. This problem was again highlighted sometime in August last year when the Prime Minister went to town on the subject of local workforce and their preference for soft jobs. There was the observation that in certain sectors of the construction industry there was almost a complete 100% preportderance of immigrant workers. An observation was made that we have now become totally dependent upon these immigrant workers for employment which requires a lot of hard labour, exposure to the sun and rain; employment where there is a certain amount of inherent risk to body and limb. At the same time it was also an observation that our local workforce tends to choose easy soft jobs, preferably in air-conditioned rooms. It is my feeling that if this air-condition comfort mentality were to persist, we are likely in the future to continue to depend on immigrant workers to run certain vital aspects of our total industry programmes. In the past we made great play of the question of bad influences from the immigrant labour force. There were lots of talk that this immigrant workforce was unaccustomed to our local habits, traditions, local work discipline, the non-compliance with certain local requirements, like keeping Singapore clean and green and gracious. In fact, there were certain unpleasant matters which were at one stage or another pinpointed at this workforce.”
“No, Sir. I wanted to know whether the Hon. Minister will consider a compulsory stint of two to three years in our health service for medical officers upon registration.”
“Sir, the Hon. Minister for Health has not answered my question. Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, was the Member for Kim Seng referring to national service?”
“Sir, in regard to the subject of the Accident and Emergency Units, I had earlier on mentioned the problem of staff shortage. I suggested to the Minister for Health that perhaps one of the best means possible to ensure a continuing supply of medical personnel and better trained doctors both for the private and public sectors, would be to enforce a stint of two to three years' compulsory service with the Ministry of Health. I do not think the Minister has given an answer on this point. Can I have his views, please?”
“At the present moment although a line is clearly drawn between staff paid by the Ministry of Health and staff paid by the University of Singapore, in terms of commitment and service they are really not much different. Therefore, perhaps the Ministry of Health could consider utilising the University staff, particularly to help run some of the peripheral hospitals. We are aware that there are now four major general hospitals and some of the peripheral hospitals are, in fact, very hard-pressed for manpower. Perhaps this is one source where there could be a fairer distribution of manpower. More doctors from the Singapore. General Hospital and from the University could be channelled to help run these peripheral hospitals. 6.00 p.m.”
“Sir, the Minister for Health has been very kind this year by sparing us the delight of not having to listen to one hour of lecture as he did last year. Perhaps this would give us time now to talk on one or two points which I thought he would have considered with more deliberation. I raised the question of housing primarily because in the civil service structure it, will be very difficult to talk in terms of a one-sided salary adjustment for doctors alone. Therefore, one should think in terms of additional perks to attract some of these civil servants to remain in the medical service. Therefore the question of provision of flats for some of these young doctors. It is certainly true that in many other countries housing is part and parcel of one's contract for employment in the hospitals. I should hate to think that the Minister would disagree and maintains the view that all Singapore-born doctors do have housing. I think the problem of housing for young doctors is no different from that of the other professionals. If the Ministry can consider the provision of flats at the usual rates, why not make life somewhat easier? The Minister also raised the question of housing for non-citizen doctors. While it is true that some 30 or 40 non-citizen doctors are housed in PSA flats, I am not sure if he is aware that at the moment more than 20 of them face eviction. I am told the PSA flats have for some reason or other been sold to HDB, and HDB is kicking them out. If the Minister will give an assurance that he will look into this matter, I will be more than happy to withdraw my remarks. One other point which may help in terms of staffing would be to utilise University staff.”
“In order to attract doctors to stay in service, one immediate step that can be taken is to provide housing. Statutory boards do provide housing for its employees. Likewise, the Ministry of Health can arrange with the HDB to make available flats or to build new flats within hospital grounds for medical officers. Young doctors and their families hunting around for accommodation will not be compelled by market forces to quit the health service so soon and look for more lucrative employment in the private sector. I know of doctors who emigrate for this very reason. The Finance Ministry is traditionally the stumbling block, and will need a lot of persuasion, but I like to think of the Hon. Minister for Health as a very persuasive man. Lastly, Sir, may I request the Hon. Minister for Health to throw some light on the proposed Kent Ridge Teaching Hospital. I have often wondered whether a separate teaching hospital is necessary at all, Presently, the Singapore General Hospital with its vast wealth of clinical material is serving very well both as a service general hospital as well as the main teaching hospital.”
“Neither has provision been entered for new posts in view of the overall vacancy position in the Ministry.' I now suggest that no special treatment be accorded doctors in fulfilling their national service obligations. Male students seeking admission to medical school must do their 21/2 years of national service before entering medical school. They do national service just like their colleagues in engineering, science, arts, architecture, etc. Let them do their stint as recruits, privates, NCOs and officers. Let them taste the real thing. Perhaps later on in their professional life they will better understand the joy and deprivation of other national servicemen. On completing national service, they are free to pursue medical education, do their housemanship and stay on in institutional practice for experience or further specialisation. They cannot then raise the issue of unfair advantage of females or non-citizen colleagues going ahead two to three years in their medical career while they claim to "languish" in the camps. The Ministry of Defence is at liberty to employ doctors as regulars. Doctors then join the Army out of their own free will and not because they have to serve their obligations. Secondly, to meet the present and possible future shortage of staff, particularly in the junior ranks and in the overall interest of the health service in Singapore, doctors on completion of their housemanship must compulsorily stay with the Ministry of Health for a period of two to three years. This is not an unusual practice in other countries, including some nearby states. The compulsory stint within the health service will work towards better trained doctors and a better standard of health care in both the private and public sectors.”